Case 4104073/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Diaz Nino v Nabil Naoum — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104073/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Diaz Nino
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Y Diaz Nino brought a claim seeking payment of unpaid wages said to be due from La Lombarda (Aberdeen) Limited, but he pursued Mr Nabil Naoum personally after obtaining a default judgment against the company. He told the tribunal that Mr Naoum was the sole owner and sole director of the company during its existence and relied on Companies House material showing that position.
The tribunal held that a limited company has a separate legal personality from its shareholders and directors. It found that the claimant had been employed by the limited company, which had originally been known as Nab Company Limited and later changed its name to La Lombarda (Aberdeen) Limited on 22 June 2017. Even accepting that Mr Naoum was the sole shareholder and sole director throughout, the tribunal found there was no basis for making him personally liable for the company’s debts.
The judgment therefore dismissed the claim. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was considering restoring the company to the register so that he could pursue the company itself, and suggested he might contact the Insolvency Service, although it expressed no concluded view on whether payment would be available in those circumstances.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant sought payment of alleged unpaid wages from Mr Naoum personally, but the tribunal found he had been employed by the limited company, not by Mr Naoum as an individual. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.